response to "Answer"1 by Mistress Bekki

Mathematics is the purest, but mathematics has got lots of uses -- thanks to capturing some dynamics of the Universe, truly. Physicists like to differentiate from engineers, but physics has led to lots of applications. Why is macro-evolution so totally useless? Because that is only a Sci-Fi paradigm.

Religious people probably rarely think that as a tool for this-worldly utility. But there is.

Macro-evolution is a Sci-Fi paradigm. Not a hypothesis with op-def. The stories may change, the paradigm is sticky. Thus your "theory" is illusion, untestably hypothetical. The Sci-Fi produced through that paradigm all happen to be useless (& yes, religiously wrong) -- but obligatory in U.S. schools.

As we believe in God, we know that scientists will never tell the truth -- because they outlaw His name.

Apr.16,2009 Mistress Bekki must be either terribly careless with her words, or else she thought the figurative sense of the word "idolatrous," that is, "given to great or excessive admiration or devotion."

Apr.16,2009 First, when publishing the (Jan.3, 2009) document, I guessed she sees how admiring I'm. The "idolatry" option is nonesense. Or, maybe she saw the keywords "Quran" and "research" to guess me in the "Quran alone" category? But, I'm a (sunni) muslim. Not a (supposedly) "text-respect" cult which hacks-&-isolates.

Apr.16,2009 What is the opposite of "devoted" as concerns faith? Lax? Air is gaseous. Water is wet.

So far as one subscribes to a faith, that is natural to getting inspired from that.

What MistressBekki is iterating is the well-known, totally inaccurate ideology about science. The statement "A good scientist doesn't believe much of anything." is obviously wrong. They believe in the most unbelievable (or, lie us so), when outlawing God out of possibles -- but, keeping macro-evolution!

-- as the policy-maker? There, you fill in the blanks, by making up your pagan lore.

The rare social scientist, if any, would fall to the trap, of neglecting a well-known person. Sure, you may try "what if?" scenarios, not all of those (possibles) referring to all of the persons/peoples relating to that issue. But totally outlawing all of the explanations involving a specific family member, is absurdly lieful.

What if Allah is interacting with us, as He is warning in the Quran?

For social-scientists, that is no problem to account for a main actor, in the social setting. That is the business of science. The self-important attitude of natural-science is the presumption, or worse, the (lieful or effectively lieful) assumption.

Religious people not all the time would need to refer to the wish of Allah as a variable, because in causal thinking, we neglect what is constant. Thus, for cases of regular nature of Allah, the cause is not forced by Him, but our personal volition.

response to "Answer"2 by Man-Behind-The-Mask

The "ism" suffix is unnecessary in that case. Although creationists feel outlawed in the school&court science, to escape seems as only a matter of resolve -- iff wanted. DIY science is popular on internet -- & loafing could boost that up, to massively obviate the macro-evolutionism-infatuated establishment.

In contrast, the escapism of materalists is futile, because the God exists.

Tell your lack of taste in their field, to astronomers, astrophysicists, scientists who spend their lives, amazed in gazing/understanding galaxies. Supply & demand is working well, there.

By the way, you want the label "science" to macro-evolutionism, without the data, while dismissing the people who list the visible?

The Universe (or, Kainat) has system, reflecting the might of the policy maker

-- as well as demonstrating how He knows the thing far more than people. One of the points when people thought the Quran might have failed was when they falsely interpreted the "Sun travels in its orbit" as if "Sun travels in some orbit around the Earth." Then, the structure of the Universe surfaced, that we know Sun is just one level up (several levels beyond that),

Living in a small small world, fighting for supremacy in this small world! How would that seem more tellable, if you were rubbing your nose to the edge of the Universe?

Islam telling that, in heaven, the smallest allotment is wider than this world.

If there were no apes, you would tell that about elephants, maybe.

Ape family may "resemble" humans, although not totally. Elephants resemble less. So what? You look at the one that seems most-similar, then think that we must have been like that?!? Aesthetical surgery is getting rid of lots of big noses. :-))/p>

For black humor with "applications," then, we may reflect that the obesity epidemic is through that ancestral link -- that is, people having the tendency to inflate like elephants, upon consuming too much, or something. Right? Wrong! That is just garbage story-making. (Besides, elephants are not "fat" although thick.) I could think such junk myself, if I were willing to make up such useless stories.

The Quranic statement "Do you have the evidence for your stories?" ridicules all such pagan mythologies. In turn, the Quran is miraculous, thus proving that Allah exists. We start there.

if you need a hardcore physics Q, go find a branch called astrophysics. Lots of people find that interesting. If so uninterested with things out of this planet, the thing may seem novel to you.

Besides, the title of the question I stated is obviously not about physics. Go see, issues of phenomenal-time, but I think posting a question about films & games on the subject (to know the prior art, for footnotes&references), not the physics section.

response to "Answer"3 by Mike M

Evolutionism is not science -- in the sense of Popper. Evolutionists are only hypocritical, when criticizing religious people for not willing to desert God. Then, where is the "final statement" that, once we refute, they will give up with the (untestably hypothetical) macro-evolutionism? No such test.

Just as in all the rest of the story, Islam is the high standard, in this, too. The Quran has several Popper-style challenges, in the face of non-believers. "Scientists" have no such. Hypocrisy is their shelter. They want to outlaw God out of science. Period.

Allah has, for example openly challenged all people to write some book similar to the Quran. Some people said that was doable, but no one substantiated that. In fact, in time, that becomes more difficult, as people find new miracles of the Quran.

Likewise, the challenge to craft a fly becomes far more troubling, upon discovering the subatomic world -- if to craft means to gather up from the elementary particles.

You put nothing on the table, but you want all from your opponent. That is not any sort of fair game.

Your notion of "science" is flawed -- if "evolution" is kept, while God is neglected.

The Quran has lots of testable hypotheses, as well as presenting several (Popper style) challenges.

Science has no such bold statement. Scientists linger. Macro-evolutionisms exaggerate that "scientist-ism" cheekiness to some ultimate point. Not testable. Not refutable. One story goes, another comes.

Progress, is what I'm telling. Testing our notions, for setting the question in the right context.

For example, the famous (or, infamous) "sun's orbit" interpretation. People had got that wrong, at first. Now, we know what Allah had said -- with more knowledge.

Hardcore muslims may think that proactively, too. Why subscribe to the first pet explanation, until some Kepler points out that, that interpretation was not the case?

The case of knowing that the Earth is spherical, was such a pro-active case.

response to Answer4 by novangel...

No macro-evolutonary algorithm is likely to exist in my computer! Something algorithm which will report a result "not probably, but possibly" would not finish a useful report in your (nor, the world's) lifetime!

Thus, the software you mention, and the biological processes you like knowing, all are the so-called micro-"evolutionary" phenomena. No evolution, only mock-evolution. Like dynamics of a free-market.

Normal genetic-process-biasing is public policy, social engineering, in a test-tube.

Maybe, you evolved from Darwin? He saw selective-breeding methods, then looking at those, tried to justify speciation, the british aristocracy, structured society. Such wild extrapolations, would nominate you to some father-of-evolution status. :-)

Furthermore, I have not even hit the core of that issue, yet. That is the joy-vs-nightmare question of biology. While programming genetic-algoritms, you would consciously know the need to think that. The gene-expression problem, that is. In biology/philosophy, try explaining "why & how" they came to correspond to what they do. Almost, or exactly, equivalent to, "why & how is living; who designed?"

If you are in one-to-one mimicry business, imitating biology, then the trouble is less, because you are imitating the design of Allah. Otherwise, you would have to think how many genes exist, and what semantics they correspond to. That is the illusion in programming such software. See,

"The Avida team is now trying to address the mystery of cooperation by creating new commands that will let organisms exchange packages of information.".@.

Had you known that when you stick adhesive tape to a balloon, a piercing needle will not explode that, if stuck from there That is a "magic"/illusion trick, too. Goes well, next to such agorithms, if selling as "automagically working." Such as the quote

Avida (DiscoveryMag, Feb2005) people design the node-type(s), and train that manually next, so far as I perused that article. Besides, if I got the quote right "", that is only pointing out why creationists had to go "hallelujah!" (or, "ellahuekber, subhHanellah, elHamdulillah!"), as that is the standard failure (of social engineering) that Adami is referring to.

"Within six months, Adami's organisms were addition whizzes. “We were able to get them to evolve without fail,” he says. But when he stopped to look at exactly how the organisms were adding numbers, he was more surprised. “Some of the ways were obvious, but with others I'd say, 'What the hell is happening?' It seemed completely insane.”"

When in a test-tube, growing microbes, that might not bother you a lot, because your aim is limited. Favoring one species vs. other (or, bisecting somehow) would do the trick. Their Avida is even more trivial then tat, because they have the might (comparable to Allah, hasha), to micro-manage the full existence of the nodes. A lab scientists is not expecting that level of individual-level interaction with microbes, knowing their social security numbers, what not! :-)) Not to mention that, Allah has crafted a full Universe (or, Kainat). Not just training "addition" and the rest left as "who knows what!" How many balls are you able to juggle? Rule-making is not child's play. One "smart" may crash the ecology! Allah has the immense system working smoothly, Allah is regulating marvelously. Besides, Avida people seem too generous. No elimination there. Denton had stated that, if not eliminating the wrong things, we would have to have lots of garbage, in our body (& cells).

Frankly, I do not recall having thought genetic algorithms as "evolution" at all, although in Spring 1993, I presented a term paper for AI. Wikipedia mentions that the category "evolutionary computation" became category, in early 1990s. That suggests further that, antichrist is lobbying, and the faces of things getting uglier.

Mention cancer? Praying is good mind-body medicine. We rarely think that, but that bonus is included.

Allah exists. Thus, He may boost the medical value furthermore, too -- if we request.

response to Answer5 by emucompb...

How do you know that prayers would not yield good results?

People pray not only against pests, or irrigation. If no rain, irrigation is a lot more costlier. If hurricanes come, no biologist would save you -- unless maybe you would like to live in some biosphere, but then, Titanic was supposedly not sinkable? God found a way to crack that. I suggest praying, rather than self-importance with your small gene-tinkering achievements, if achievement, at all.

The man-made irrigation is less sustainable than the nature-friendly (although "untidy") style of the Nile or Gange flooding the lands.

See Super Organics (Wired, May 2004), better than GMO.
Monsanto failed. FlavrSavr failed. Praying works. No monopoly on best genes. What would we like to have, next? We keep praying, naturally.

The experiments of Mendel had shown that "allele frequencies in populations" are not necessarily constant. Not evolutionists. That does not support evolution, either. Population dynamics, only.

Besides, your statement is anachronistic, if Darwin's first chapter is referring to.

response to Answer6 by Cirbryn

Micro-"evolution" is only mock-evolution. Your examples, are in this category.
Probably, you were supposed to guess that, the question was about macro-evolution, the {hypothetical, useless, unlikely}, in contrast to the genetics of Mendel (or, population dynamics) that is {testable, replicable, visible}.

Your first URL was not working when I clicked.

Most of your list just tries to hijack genetics, as if that were synonymous with evolutionism.

Ironically, you list "unifying the otherwise disparate branches of biology" as a value? That is the escapism issue. The replacement word "evolution" is utilized as a replacement-"god." You try to interpret evolution, as a (vague) policy, not mechanism. Not verifiable something, that is.

The flu article, is not "DIY" but just "explaining" as "mutation." How do they know that?

Not that that would matter a lot, but that is disputable.

How do we know that, that "new"/"mutant" is not older than even humanity? This is way more sensible than assuming that the viruses "somehow" tune their body, beyond what they were. That is, at most, what was "vestigial" now became lethal.

In psychology, people condition laboratory animals with pain-shock. Would they list that as "Upon electrical shocks, the rat 'evolved' to the state of not getting into B section?" Mock-evolution!

Although rats may temporarily get stuck in helplessness, that is again reversible, by applying behavioral conditioning, again! Regular experimental situation, that is.

Dogs conditionable by voices we don't perceive. If e-shocked rats (or, ultrasonic-harassed dogs) become helpless, is that "evolution," too? Mock-evolution!

More specifically, if your painshock (intimidating) tool is a whistle that is perceived by dogs, but not perceptible for humans, would your result statement go "humans evolved to a state that they were resistant to painshock, while dogs were yelping (we found such & such genes that were not like the dog, thus they must have evolved to withstand ultrasonic persistent noise)" :-))

Or, in case your experiment was for re-inforcing some behavior, then "dogs have evolved to outsmart humans for grabbing the reward?" Is that serious?!

No, but if you would try to hijack all of such experimental-manipulations like that, then people may revere you as some sort of evolutionism-father, I suppose. :-))

Your sarcasm against creationists, trying to hijack medicine with mock-evolutionary brainwash, is extra.

That was a joke I had poked at some evolutionists in 1993 fall semester. Until evolotionists would explain how the male & female genitals would have that perfect fit (not to mention the physiology of sex, and reproductive system internally), they might refrain from sex. (That was the thought, although I might have told relatively politely. Not in the command language. Now, to face your/Doonesbury sarcasm.)

I had referred to the problem of antibiotics in some of what I had published, and never thought somebody would think that as "evolution." That is how helpless evolutionists seem to be, to cling on something as "evolution" to escape from God.